Monotheism vs Polytheism
- Abiathar
- Posts: 247
- Joined: April 29th, 2008, 5:32 pm
- Location: Angkor Wat.
Monotheism vs Polytheism
My standpoint on this, as an anthromorphic personificationist, doesn't really matter, so what I will attempt to do is give the opening grounds for the ensuing conversation, and then join it after a couple of posts on either side. I will then, also, be hiding behind my house, drinking coffee, for many hours to avoid the ensuing riot. I would, however, if at all possible, ask that reponses be detailed and holding with them a shred of proof or example. If at all possible, I would thoroughly enjoy the proving of one or the other, or atleast a good fight. The reason for this is that we all, fully, understand that Christians = Monotheist, Many = Polytheists, and Atheists = Amazing wells of knowledge on religion, and their opinions will not change without some proof, and the conversation can go on forever, as it already has. However, feel free to post your theory on this with or without proof, as I often do not provide proof/examples unless explicitly asked, namely to save space.
Polytheists:
There are many biblical references to the 'other' gods and in the book of Exodus during Solomon's reign it even goes so far as to name them, as Solomon himself built temples to them in Jerusalem.
For thousands of years the world was polytheistic as almost a whole, very very few small sects were monotheistic.
Polytheists, ancient, claim to have interacted with their gods on a daily basis, and went so far as very detailed descriptions of their appearances.
The asigning of many gods has been an almost inborn human trait since we learned to draw on caves.
Monotheists:
The universe, to current astrophysics and theory, began with a singular point where-in even the concepts of Time and Space were simply part of it, and has now been expanding forever. We cannot explain 'The Singularity' or any of its functions, beyond good math saying that is what happened.
Much of the bible has been proven in references to Places, People, and major events. Though at times its perspective is a bit off, it still reads true in many ways.
The concil of Mycene destroyed the bible however the Talmud is, thus far, found to be vastly more accurate than the 'bible'. Though differing from Christian views, much of it has been proven as well.
The Arabic nations, the nations of Islam, were building palaces of marble and gold when the rest of the world lived in little huts and tents, and they were still Islamic.
Atheists:
Be nice.
-
- Posts: 73
- Joined: March 6th, 2007, 6:59 am
Polytheism has been considered to be just a elaborate dressup of Monotheism. The different Gods such as the God of War, God of Love, etc. can be described as aspects of the greater whole, a Supreme Being that manifests these qualities in "Gods". Plus, our definition of God has also changed throughout history to accomodate this idea; if a "God" is so much more powerful, why can't a God of War manifest the qualities of a God of Love? Isn't a God supposed to perfect in all aspects?
Then we get to civilization that has cut the fat and turned to Monotheism. A Supreme Being that contains all known aspects of the Gods in one Being, must be much more powerful than any one of the Gods. But then, we realize; God has these attributes of humans: this God is just like us with the emotions of love, anger, intelligence, beauty (and in greater qualities than humans), except He is also all powerful, all knowing, all loving.
And this is the modern day viewpoint. God has become something man-made; a greater mirror image of ourselves. Feuerbach described this as man creating God in his own image, not vice-versa. Something that we create in order to think that there is something greater than ourselves. Atheists dismiss God as a fantasy (although a particularly strong fantasy that has affected human history).
I am an agnostic. I'm not an atheist who is going to simply dismiss human religious history as bullsh*t. I am not a theist, because I can't ignore the fact that the conception of God has changed throughout history, into something that is may likely changed into some human corruption that is nothing like an actual God or Gods.
- Chosen-one
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 10
- Joined: October 29th, 2016, 8:18 am
Re: Monotheism vs Polytheism
are monotheism, polytheism and atheism depend on personal form you give Brahman.
- Bryntyrch2016
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: November 23rd, 2016, 3:35 pm
Re: Monotheism vs Polytheism
A theist is a deist who thinks the God(s) have some relation to humans - they built us and or have some plan for us. That would allow for cultural monotheism: God Thoth is the ONLY god who cares for Egyptians, God Jehovah is the ONLY God for Jews etc. Universal mono theism is, for me, incoherent. I suspect the Romans had the right solution : introduce your local God to the other cultures God: they often get along fine - your God in Bath is Sulis, and this is her temple? Well here's Minerva who does the same **** for us. What if we call her Sulis Minerva? Nice one Centurion!
- Renee
- Posts: 327
- Joined: May 3rd, 2015, 10:39 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Frigyes Karinthy
Re: Monotheism vs Polytheism
So, for atheists, Brahman has the number zero assigned to it.Chosen-one wrote:In hinduism you can be any or all of monotheism, polytheism and atheism. God does not have number. God is beyond number. whether you
are monotheism, polytheism and atheism depend on personal form you give Brahman.
(Little known trivia: Seinfeld, the TV show, featured Brahman prominently in one of the episodes... can you guess which one?)
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023